New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-04-11
MIR. HIT ON TILE FISHERIES.
HIS OPINION OF Mr.. CLEvELANDs LETTER.
ADVANTAGES or THE SENATE BILL OVER THAT OF
THE HOUsE--NOTHING LIKELY TO BE DONE
fbY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRIDuNE1

ADVANTAGES or THE SENATE BILL OVER THAT OF
THE HoUsE-NOrHING LIKELY TO BE DONE.
tbY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRrDUNE1
WARRINGTON April 1o.-"what do you think of Presi-
dent Cevelands letter to the New England shermeni"
TRIBUNE correspondent asked Of Representative Hit
tonight.
well, 1 was struck with tho similarity between
large portion Of 1t and Mr. Daniels speech In the debate
in the House. You remember that he insisted on
the House bill which he said embodied the
views Of the Administration lie wanted that bill be
he desired lift tho controversy out Of the a
tudc of little local quarrel and because he was
anxious 10 have the United States take firm. manly
broadside position along the whole line.'"
"DO you infer from the Presidents letter that any
action under the law is likely to be takeni"
81 do not. When the matter under discussion
repeatedly heard from who had means OF obtaining
correct information, that the Administration did not de-
sire to do anything that II all very well for the Con-
gress to express sentiment OF the country but that
the matter would end with the enactment Of the cgsla
ton OF course cannot assert that that information
was correct Of the opinion that nothing will be
done
"Do you think that the suggested by the fisher
men would be the proper one to take /"
"As to should say that the trouble and all the
trouble present the fisheries 1t solely in
relation that that the law framed and enacted
Tho mon who spoke for the Administration in the House
complained that the Senate bill, which finally
was passed, not broad enough ;
that it contemplated only retaliation in
kind-thc exclusion of Canadian fish and fishing vessels
from American ports That criticism was not just. for
the law does give the Executive power to exclude all
Canadian products Now, understand 1t. the New
England people ask that first step retaliation
shall be ws'p0Tsyss to es effect injury ceran uan'
sSitS'" sSt by tho exercise Of stven power %
We want to influence public opinion both at home and
abroad II We stick to the point In controversy. the III
treatment and wrongs to which fishery interests
subjected. we will do wisely OF course retaliation
which would affect only the fishing interest OF Canada
should prove Intellectual 1t might be necessary 60
further do not believe that 1t would be necessary"
Mr. Hit 10 q member OF the House Committee on
Foreign Aar. he also man r Wno mas had consider G
yoar been careful student OF the trade relations be-
tween the United States and Canada In his speech
the retaliation bill Mr. Hit said: 49,, .
"The Senate bill is one which attempts to
do thing In the very best way In which the
experience Of Nations shows 1t ought 70 be done.
IL to injury by responsive action aud
a!atcs In kind In the language OF the books II called
retorson That is the frat means Of pacific redress
ons Ordinarily sncessf between civilized ehrist
ian nations. or 1t is followed by other repsa
seizure OF enemies goods OF force
fshermon and fishing vessels OF their rights It
you will not cease to annoy our ships by pc,ty
tsn: yS a w nS' se %
ing legislation and insult and veK our fishermen In
order to constrain us to change our laws
to grant ns 5s' daT SSS Wa Oi
by saying Instead Of changing our laws, you cannot
bring hsh in at all We do not propose to compete with
e% n & Sss Gs sood
:" This Is the method OF pacific redress that is
ordinarily adopted In such disputes. and Or
who sits before Governor Curtin familiar with
Of similar instances IN diplomatic history and
sure he win unite with me In saying that this is
always the first step taken by wise statesmen"
Nj. Curtn-That Is true.